Campaigners have called for an end to “unchecked political patronage” as polls found most people oppose plans for Boris Johnson to appoint new peers in the final weeks of his prime ministership.
The Electoral Reform Society raised the alarm over a proposal drawn up by CT Group, a political lobbying firm run by Tory adviser Lynton Crosby, for the Prime Minister to appoint up to 50 new Tory lawmakers to introduce controversial legislation into parliament .
The leaked document led to the condemnation of Gordon Brown and led to accusations that the Lords were already being “exploited”, meaning more “significant checks and balances” were needed on appointments.
Opinium polls found that 54% of people are against Johnson drawing up a list of “resignation honors” that could ennoble key allies who stood by him in the final days of his administration and urged him to continue fighting. Only 13% supported the measure, while 34% expressed no opinion.
Among voters who supported the Conservatives in 2019, 41% were against the plan while 21% were in favor. There were 2,000 adults surveyed at the end of July, and their responses were weighted to be nationally representative.
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, told the Guardian that most people were against “first ministers filling the Lords with friends and donors as they head for the exit door”.
He said: “Each new peer created has a lifetime right to sit in parliament, which means potentially decades of influence on our laws, as well as cost to the public. How they are chosen is important.
“With more than 800 members, the Lords is already overflowing, and with more peerages planned, it is clear that we cannot simply rely on the restraint of individual First Ministers to reduce our bloated second chamber.
“That is why we urgently need to reform the system so that there are meaningful checks and balances governing who is appointed to the Lords.
“Ultimately, it should not be up to the whim of the Prime Minister to decide who makes and controls our laws. It is time to end this system of unchecked political patronage and ensure that all our legislators are elected by the people what are they for”.
While previous prime ministers have appointed peers at the end of their administrations, Johnson was accused by former president Helene Hayman of trying to “overthrow constitutional rules”. She told the BBC: “I’m not sure Boris Johnson understands that having a challenging House of Lords actually improves government policy and improves legislation.”
The current Lord Speaker, John McFall, wrote to both Tory leadership candidates to urge them not to follow suit and inject their own influx of peers. Rishi Sunak is understood to have responded, but Liz Truss did not.
Analysis by the Institute for Government found that in just three years, Johnson had already made 86 appointments to the Lords, equivalent to 10% of its current size.
While the House of Lords nominations committee may advise against certain candidates receiving a peerage, the think tank’s deputy director Hannah White said that “on leaving Downing Street there will be even less incentive for Johnson to exercise moderation”.
A government spokesman said that, given the number of peers resigning, some new members were essential to keep the experience and perspective of the current upper house of parliament and ensure it could continue to scrutinize legislation. The spokesman added that successive prime ministers had drawn up lists of dissolution or resignation of nobility.
CT Group has said its proposals to strengthen the Lords were an “early working draft” prepared for a think tank to “assist the discussion”.